We all remember high school. We had our groups of friends, and we had those groups that we did not fit in. We even went out of our way sometimes not to run into the groups we did not belong too. As we moved from school to the work place we thought there would not be the high school cliques in the work place. What we found out is the cliques are still there and they have a name. The name of these clicks are the in-group and the out-group.
Are in-groups and out-groups good for business? One could argue that these groups can “divide the work unit into two groups and one group receives special attention, while the other group could feel discriminated against” (Northouse, 2016, p. 146). “This in-group favoritism results in strong us vs. them feelings that can cause people to treat those in the out-group quite differently than those in the in-group” (Cherry, 2018).
I believe that in-groups and out-groups could be good for business. We all want to be part of the popular group. “In order to hold ourselves in high esteem, we feel the need to believe that our own group is superior” (Cherry, 2018). This feeling of esteem should make us work harder to prove that we are better than people believe. Leaders tend to have better relationships with those people who “do more” (Northouse, 2016, p. 145).
The Leader-Member Exchange Theory does a good job at highlighting this. “LMX theory validates our experience of how people within organizations relate to each other and the leader. Some contribute more and receive more; others contribute less and get less” (Northouse, 2016, p. 145). The people who are doing more and getting more from the leader, are people in the in-group. Those people who do just enough or contribute less than the in-group are in the out-group of the work force.
The in-group in the work force are trying to impress their leader. By doing this they are going above and beyond their duty to the company. By going above their duty their leader then gives them “more responsibilities and more opportunities” (Northouse, 2016, p. 144). This makes the business run more efficiently and on time. Which will make the business more prosperous.
Those people who are part of the out-group are either happy just doing the bare minimum, or they are those people who are on their way out of the company. For those that are on their way out of the company that is good for the company. This will allow for new people to come in and be part of that in-group to get things done. The people that are just happy doing the bare minimum are never going to move through the company, as they are not part of the group that is getting things done.
As much as we want to believe that in-groups and out-groups are bad because of the discrimination that it could create is bad for business. From what we have seen here, in-groups are good for business. It creates competition, and allows those that want to succeed to do so. It also helps filter out those who are on their way out of the company. New blood in a company, helps keep that competition high, which keeps productivity high, which is good for business.
References
Cherry, K. (2018, February 7). What Is the Ingroup Bias? Retrieved from https://www.explorepsychology.com/ingroup-bias/
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Fonda Garcia says
The later studies of the leader-member exchange theory helps to answer your question if in-groups are good for business as it addressed how the theory related to organizational effectiveness (Northouse, 2016). In-groups are defined by the high-quality exchanges between leaders and members, examples of which you’ve discussed in your post. These high-quality exchanges were found to produce “less employee turnover, more positive performance evaluations, higher frequency of promotions, greater organizational commitment, more desirable work assignments, better job attitudes, more attention and support from the leader, greater participation, and faster career progress” (Northouse, 2016, p. 140). Thus, this theory would suggest that in-groups are beneficial to organizations. Additionally, further studies have shown that in-group and out-group differentiation could promote motivation and increase effort and performance.
References
Lount Jr., R. B., & Phillips, K. W. (2007). Working harder with the out-group: The impact of social category diversity on motivation gains. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 214-224.
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice 7th Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Ian Joseph Damiani says
Hi Brad,
I definitely agree with you that in-groups and out-groups can be good for business. However, I would argue that they can also be bad. When it comes to being apart of the in-group, we all want in. You mentioned “In order to hold ourselves in high esteem, we feel the need to believe that our own group is superior” (Cherry, 2018), and I believe this is super true. I think though that this could be bad for business. Since, everyone wants to be in the superior in-group, it could make people in the out-group less motivated or angry. This would be bad for business if people in the out-group are actually good workers or actually really important to the business. Being in the out-group could cause them to be less motivated or do less good work.
I think out-groups and in-groups can be good for business in another way that you didn’t mention. I agree that out-groups could be good because those people may be bad workers and would eventually leave or get fired but there could be another good thing about out and in-groups. One way they could be good is, like you mentioned about how everyone wants to be in the superior group to hold ourselves in high esteem, this could motivated the out-group. If people in the out-group want to be in the in-group then, no matter how bad of a worker they are, they could be motivated to do better and try harder as to get into the in-group. This in turn would make people in the out-group just as good workers as the in-group which would definitely make for better business.
Great post,
Ian
ath5185 says
I think that your post was very relatable to real life in the workplace. I have seen some similar situations where it benefits to be in the “in-group”. Workers who are in the group have a sense of collectivism which makes them feel more important. There is an urgency to become part of this in group because of the treatment it comes with. If it is true that leaders are more in tune with those in this group because they do more, then in theory it would boost production levels. If everyone is striving to become part of this group it can lead to greater business results. Depending on how much bias is shown it could cause some divides, but overall I think if there is a good balance it can be helpful. As you stated by going above and beyond leads to more responsibilities from the leader. The more people overperform, the more work gets done. It is an effective cycle for leadership, followers, and situation.
Jennifer Thompson says
I see how you can relate in-group/out-group to high school cliques. I do have to say though, I don’t think this theory is quite as brutal as high school can be for some. In fact, I think it’s a way of describing more of an attitude toward work as opposed to how people fit in with one another. As Northouse (2018) described, in-group collectivism refers more to the way “people express pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness in their organizations” (p. 438) than it is about how they fit into the group. For example, I work for an organization where my personal political beliefs are very different from most other people I work with. But just because we have different beliefs doesn’t preclude us from all working together to do a good job for the organization as a whole.
I think the LMX theory does a great job of explaining how out-group members fit into an organization. Northouse (2018) says, “[O]ut-group members operate strictly within their prescribed organizational roles” (p. 146). This doesn’t mean they aren’t contributing to the organization, rather, they are in a place where they choose to do only what is required of them. I have lots of people within my larger organization who are out-group members who are still very successful at their jobs. They do a great job doing their jobs. They don’t step outside of their comfort zone, and that’s okay. If everyone in the organization was constantly reaching for more and working outside of their realm, the workplace would turn into a very competitive place.
Like you mentioned in your post, leaders do see the in-group members who are contributing and striving to excel. I would like to say, however, that I have lots of team members who excel at their own jobs. They are contributing to the organization by doing the best possible job they can do. This doesn’t make them “less than” in the eyes of others, rather, it makes them people who are content where they are. They do not wish to promote before they retire and that is okay. Granted, it’s not who I am as a person, but it’s who they are and that’s perfectly okay. So to answer your question, I do think in-groups are good for business, but I also think the out-groups provide a good balance.
References
Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: theory and practice (8th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.